Abstract
The aim of this paper is to elaborate on the Austrian school’s methodological orientation, which they named “subjectivism,” in a way that shows its affinity with the main thrust of John Dewey’s notion of the logic of inquiry. It is trying to make two distinct but related points. First, it is trying to clarify what “subjectivism,” the central methodological principle of Austrian economics, really means, or at least what we think it should mean. It can be understood as a challenge to the “objectivistic” attitude of mainstream economics, the attitude that the Austrians argue is what is keeping economics too disconnected with the everyday world. Second, the paper is trying to show that the confusions that have arisen around the Austrians’ own method might be cleared up if we were to draw from Dewey’s work.

.

*

Paper prepared for the first annual symposium on the Foundation of the Behavioral Sciences, organized by the

Behavioral Research Council (a division of American Institute for Economic Research) on “John Dewey, Modernism, Postmodernism and Beyond,” at Simon Rock College of Bard, Great Barrington Mass., July 20, to July 22, 2001. Thanks to several of our colleagues for their comments and suggestions regarding this paper, particularly David Prychitko and Young Back Choi. The standard disclaimer applies.

The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry

2

The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
The environment in which human beings live, act, and inquire, is not simply physical. It is cultural as well. Problems which induce inquiry grow out of the relations of fellow beings to one another, and the organs for dealing with these relations are not only the eye and ear, but the meanings which have developed in the course of living, together with the ways of forming and transmitting culture with all its constituents of tools, arts, institutions, traditions, and customary beliefs. … Man, as Aristotle remarked, is a social animal. This fact introduces him into situations and originates problems and ways of solving them that have no precedent upon the organic biological level. For man is social in another sense than the bee and the ant, since his activities are encompassed in an environment that is culturally transmitted, so that what man does and how he acts, is determined not by organic structure, and physical heredity alone but by the influence of cultural heredity, embedded in traditions, institutions, customs, and the purposes and beliefs they both carry and inspire. John Dewey ([1938] 1991: 48-9)

Many scholars have questioned the ability of economic science to deliver on its promises of logical determinacy and predictive power. The American cynic Will Rogers once described an economist as someone who can tell you what will happen under any given circumstances and his guess is liable to be as good as anyone else’s. It is not so much the jargon of economics that brings on the wrath of the public and other social scientists nor is it the abstract nature of economic reasoning. All specialized disciplines rely on jargon and abstract reasoning. We believe the problem is multi-dimensional. First, some people simply resent the success that economics has had because it calls into question their cherished policy beliefs. Second, there is a perceived arrogance among economists, most obvious in the “economic imperialism” that has emerged since the 1960s where the economic method is exported to the fields of politics, sociology, and even philosophy. However, for the purposes of this paper we propose that economics falls into disrepute because economics discusses matters which touch on everyday life, yet it seems that economists are talking about something so remote from the world within which we dwell in our everyday life. As Ronald Coase stated the problem in his original address to newly founded International Society for New Institutional Economics: “Economics, over the years, has become more and more abstract and divorced from the events in the real world. Economists, by and large, do not study the workings of the actual economic system. They theorize about it. As Ely Devons, an English economist, once said at a meeting, ‘If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’’” The implication for Coase, if economics is going to advance it must stop doing blackboard economics exclusively and actually look out the window and study the economic system in detail – the underlying property rights structure, the nature of contracts, the operation of firms, etc.

See also Boettke (1997). Kirzner 1992 and 2000. Over the last few decades. is not that they specialize. seems caught in an institutionalized trap of ‘conspicuous production’ and has come perilously close to becoming “precisely irrelevant.
2
Value theory encompasses the conceptualizations economists have developed to make sense of price phenomena of
all kinds. economics has become more and more formal. capital. investments and profits. the subjectivists have asserted. as Carl Menger suggested from the beginning. economists have largely satisfied themselves with playing logical games and solving imaginary puzzles. to be only a narrow. more and more instrumental. we have to take seriously the ‘subjective perspectives’ of the individuals we study. The new institutionalists. Instead.”2 But. is sound economics. under-socialized creatures. we are referring to economists qua academics and to the discipline of mainstream economics. Over the last few (at least seven) decades.”1 The more interpretive sub-disciplines of economics have long been complaining about the “puzzle-solving” mentality that infects the mainstream. however. Lachmann 1971. technical issue within the field economists call “value theory. the economic sociologists have criticized the mainstream for representing individuals as atomized. for instance. and as Ludwig Mises came to emphasize
1
See Boettke (1996) for an examination of what is wrong with neoclassical economics and what problems remain
within the Austrian school of economics. for failing to embed the individual in a context of “ongoing social relationships and structures” (Granovetter 1985). have argued that the mainstream inadequately appreciates the formal and informal institutions that constrain the (actual) choices of individuals (North 1990). must be thoroughly focused on the meanings that individuals attach to their actions and their situations. if it is to serve the everyman. that we in no way intend to implicate economists qua practitioners in this critique. that is. at first. we have to construct an economics of meaning. An economics of the world. The problem is that “kelly green golfing shoes” are not
3
in demand (except amongst other economists). It is important to note. Lavoie 1991a). the subjectivists (those working in the tradition of Weber. is that instead of trying to understand the problems of everyday economic life.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry The problem with economics as an academic discipline. and more and more precise about areas that are of less and less importance to anybody else. Indeed. then. And. Economics as a discipline. economists have increasingly specialized in the production of “kelly green golfing shoes with chartreuse tassels” (McCloskey 2000a: 150). including the nature of accounting cost. “sticking to your last” as Smith put it.
. thus. Specializing. The problem. we recognize that there are a host of applied economists who cannot be accused of being divorced from the world or of being irrelevant. to understand how he orients himself to his fellows and how he overcomes the problems of time and ignorance. however. that is. Mises and Hayek) have attacked the mainstream for not being about “purpose”. wages. The idea of “subjectivism” appeared. Man lives in a world of radical uncertainty yet he must orient himself to his fellow men if he is to succeed (Mises [1949] 1966). If economics is to be relevant. To understand how he accomplishes this. Similarly. “intentionality” and “meaning” (Weber 1922.

The idea of “subjective value” in economic theory. We will argue that although subjectivism improved upon mainstream economists in that it was able to at least start from the world of meaning. They are unintended resultants of purposeful plans tugging and pulling in different directions. that is. like the verstehen school with which it was linked. Similarly. not the tradition
after it absorbed the radical phenomenological critique of objectivism that was to come later in the Heideggerian tradition. subjectively-valued goods. Prices are not arbitrary constraints. it is an attempt to find meaning in prices. buried inside of individual human minds. Before the so-called subjectivist revolution in value theory. in terms of the relative scarcities of different. representing merely the outcome of some sort of capitalist warfare. What Carl Menger was really saying when he undertook a critique of “objectivist” approaches to value theory was that prices provide market participants with a meaningful reading of the economic situation. is that prices are guideposts that help us to orient our plans to one another. But the traditional Austrian account of subjectivism. Heinrich Rickert. never completely overcame the subject/object dichotomy. which is to say. as some Marxists would argue. Prices express the relative intensities of diverse “subjective” assessments of value. It retained a tendency to think of the subjective as in some sense an inaccessible realm. Mises realized. Subjectivism is not limited to a particular technical
4
problem within a field inside of the discipline of economics.G. What underlies the quantitative ratios we call price phenomena is not something objective. Ricardian value theory. mistakes the fundamental nature of price phenomena. The Austrians had already shaped their sense of the meaning of verstehen before the full impact of phenomenology had the chance to transform it. The point in value theory. according to Mises. And (2) only the first one made its full impact on the Austrian school. but is a quantitative reflection of a set of diverse qualitative judgments. we will call the “understanding” tradition.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry explicitly. J. The larger sense of the tradition including its phenomenological versions. it represents a fundamental approach to social theory in general (Mises 1957). Max Weber. the classical economists’ attempts to find the meaning of prices in terms of the historical objective labor hours embodied in them were unsatisfactory. The distinction between the narrower and broader senses of the tradition is important for two reasons: (1) only the earlier version is susceptible to the Deweyan critique of the subject/object dichotomy that we will summarize later in this paper.
. and Alfred Schütz. in all its variants. a quantitative property of the goods themselves. is a specific application of a more general verstehen or understanding-oriented approach to the human sciences. Droysen. assessments that are based on radically diverse perspectives on the world.3 Mises came to understand Menger’s revolution in value theory as amounting to a turn to the verstehen approach. the real significance of the idea is much broader. the influential tradition of German social thought that is associated with which the names Wilhelm Dilthey. because of the
3
We will use the term verstehen tradition to refer specifically to the older hermeneutical tradition.

Consider. Attempts by the mainstream to transform their classroom tales into theoretical improvements. First. however. in his volume on entrepreneurship across the social sciences. have been largely unsuccessful. If the price happens to be below the market clearing price. the failure of development planning and the collapse of socialist regimes in the late 1980s” (Boettke 1994: 603). models market activity as a series of instantaneous moves from one equilibrium situation to another. Uncertainty and Profit (1921). that is. and quantities. the amount of the good people will be willing to buy in the aggregate will be greater than the amount that people are willing to supply to the market. the mainstream has chosen to ignore the root causes of its problems. “some economists [simply] assume that
4
Knight begins by distinguishing between risk (uncertainties for which a probability can be calculated) and genuine
uncertainty (for which no objective measures can be calculated) and then goes on to describe the entrepreneur as “a residual. despite the severity of its illnesses. Objective Economics and the Austrian Challenge
Much ails mainstream economics. It “cannot explain satisfactorily the dynamics of market activity. For markets to clear in the mainstream model. prices will be pressured upward. would be for it to take seriously John Dewey’s point: inquiry needs to both begin and end in meaningful human experience. preferring instead to treat or rather to mask the symptoms. the problems of interventionism and regulation.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry manner it which it understood “understanding” it was still unable to fully return.” The mainstream. we contend. the fiscal crises of democratic welfare states. the market is a “process” and not a mere “configuration of prices.
5
A. he contends. non-contractual income claimant [who] may make a windfall gain if actual receipts prove greater than forecasted receipts” (Blaug [1986] 2000). the problem that entrepreneurship posses for mainstream economics. for instance. Amazingly. consequently. in culture. however. Most economists compensate for this shortcoming by telling tales of businessmen recognizing the opportunities created by prices being too low or too high to clear markets and acting to exploit those opportunities. however. within the model explains how this requisite process of adjustment will occur. for the quantity of a good demanded (desired) in a market to be equal to the quantity of that good supplied to the market.4 Why the neglect? Why has the entrepreneur been unable to find a place in mainstream theory? Swedberg (2000). As Kirzner (1979: 3) pointed out in one of his early salvoes against mainstream’s model of economic activity. One way in which the Austrians could escape from the psychologistic limitations of the verstehen approach. Nothing. There will be an impending shortage and. for instance. offers a least three possible reasons for the mainstream’s neglect of who should be one of their main characters. let alone the recurrence of macroeconomic crises. Most mainstream textbooks barely mention the entrepreneur and little serious work has done by mainstream economists since Knight’s treatment in Risk. qualities. prices must adjust.
. Anyone who has tried to teach the textbook economics has run head on into this very problem with the standard approach.

since most who study entrepreneurship recognize the entrepreneur as the sine qua non of the economic process. has recognized that the entrepreneur plays the “crucial role in the market process. “A market consisting exclusively of economizing. “there is present in all human action an element which.” Profit opportunities indicate that either sellers or buyers have been too pessimistic. buyers have either paid more for their goods than they would have had to pay elsewhere or sellers have sold their wares at a price lower than what they could have charged.” More recent treatments of the entrepreneur within the Austrian camp have sort to embed him even more firmly in the real world. the growing popularity of general equilibrium theory [in the middle of the last century] set the seal on the possibility of theorizing about entrepreneurship. or efficiency criteria. annoying mainstream theory and theorists. In short. we require in addition an element which is itself not comprehensible within the narrow conceptual limits of economizing behavior.” Kirzner continues. . By assuming that all economic agents have free access to all the information they require for taking decisions. it emphasizes equilibrium at the expense of disequilibrium.” As Kirzner argues. which they prefer would go away.” The allocative role of the market process cannot be understood. mechanistic character and has argued (moving beyond Kirzner) that the entrepreneur is primarily a cultural creature. . decisionmaking in modern economics is largely trivialized into the mechanical application of mathematical rules for optimization. and thus of nudging the market systematically in the direction of greater mutual awareness among market participants .):
. . . maximizing individuals. as the principal agent of change in the market. the entrepreneurial discovery process is one whose tendency is systematically equilibrative. “does not generate the market process that we seek to understand. The subjectivists (those working in the tradition of Weber.” “Others.” he continues. he claims. the entrepreneurial role in the market process is that of “alertly noticing (‘discovering’) [earlier] errors” in the course of market exchange and “of moving to take advantage of such discoveries. particularly. maximizing. For Kirzner (1999: 6) then. … Despite valiant attempts to dynamise microeconomics large parts of modern economics remain trapped in a static framework. For the market process to emerge. for instance. without reference to this “extra-economic” entrepreneurial element of human action. what it actually possesses is the theory of the outcome of that process in an equilibrium state. . The entrepreneur is essentially a gadfly. has recognized (along with Kirzner) that the entrepreneur is not merely a calculative. Austrian economist Israel Kirzner (1973: 30). Lavoie (1991: 36). Lavoie (ibid. Economic historian Mark Blaug concurs with Swedberg’s analysis.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry economic process is automatic or that economies will advance without the help of an entrepreneur. cannot itself be analyzed in terms of economizing. Mises and Hayek) are at the fore of the effort to elevate the entrepreneur to his rightful place of prominence. and finally there are
6
those who state that input and output in the firm have to be determined as well as be identical for the theory to work – even though this unfortunately means that the entrepreneur is eliminated” (21). Worse than that is the fact that modern economics lacks any true theory of the competitive process. As Blaug ([1986] 2000: 81) contends. for instance. although crucial to economizing activities in general. This is extraordinary. “claim that there is simply no place for the entrepreneur in an equilibrium system.

as result. Boettke argues that we can gain a better understanding of why the actual system suffered from the systemic failings by exploring the everyday economic life of the people and highlighting what political economy factors must be incorporated into the analysis in order to reform the economic system and eliminate those systemic shortcomings. Boettke counters the “shock therapy” versus “gradualism” debate. Boettke (2001 and 1993) argues that the techniques of aggregate economics masked the underlying structural failings of the Soviet system. If we ill-define the “here” and leave undefined the “there” we how to arrive at.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry Entrepreneurship . as misspecification. has discussed how Ghanaian (Ga) and Zimbabwean (Shona) cultures have impacted the entrepreneurial practices of market women in those contexts.’ at least as traditionally articulated
. Another failing of mainstream economics is their inability to make sense of the collapse of the soviet system and the failure of the former soviet countries (particularly Russia) to transition from the rent-seeking system that was communism to an efficient market system. there is still something not quite satisfactory about the ‘subjectivist position. by arguing that the problem is not so much speed. Similarly. taking her cue from Lavoie. a culture. 2000a. have the subjectivists been able to understand the problems of entrepreneurship and transition while many in the mainstream have not? That the subjectivists. act and inquire is. or the comparison of aggregate economic statistics). And like any other interpretation. then why should we be surprised when we get lost on our trip? By focusing on the de facto operating principles of the real existing Soviet economic system (rather than either the textbook depiction of a centrally planned economy. this reading of profit opportunities necessarily takes place within a larger context of meaning. is primarily a cultural process. in seeking to construct an economics of meaning. have focused on the ‘subjective perceptions’ of the individuals they study and the “real world” (the actual contexts) in which individuals live. . you need a roadmap to go from “here” to “there”. the reform proposals introduced have often been seriously flawed precisely because they failed to account for the realities of the system actually being reformed. The mainstream which does not even register the entrepreneur as a blip on its theoretical radar is simply unable to appreciate the crucial role of the entrepreneur in the market process let alone the cultural character of entrepreneurship. Chamlee-Wright (1997. If the transition process is analogous to taking a trip. rather than the textbook theoretical image people thought they were reforming. and the preoccupation with
7
static efficiency analysis at the microeconomic level also blinded economists to the realities of the political economy dynamics of the Soviet economic system. 2000b) has examined how the experience of colonialism and slavery has impeded and impaired entrepreneurial efforts in the West Indies. But. Why then. The seeing of profit opportunities is a matter of cultural interpretation. Storr (2000a. we now ask. In the post-communist period. at least part of the reason. . we contend. against a background of discursive practices. 2000b).

and not about the real world. they are only working on a narrowly technical point in the theory of value. So. Objectivism. profit. Human beings are social and political animals. Philosophical Traps: Subjectivism. and interest rates. As traditionally articulated. and tends to connote epistemological relativism and solipsism. it is thought of as buried in the minds of the participants. who understand the term to refer to a particular achievement that marked the transformation of classical into neoclassical economics. Kant. It seems to only involve several technical questions in the theory of price. subjectivism often sounds like psychologism. one might well suppose that the philosophical connotations of terms such as “object” and “subject” and their derivatives are utterly irrelevant to the economists’ uses of these terms. By contrast. by some friends as well as foes. It is almost never deployed as a term of praise. It often sounds like what is required is that we (somehow) get “into the heads” of our subjects or that we retreat into our own heads (constructing an economics purely through ratiocination). suggests that the philosophical issues are more relevant to the economists’
. rent. not rehearsing the debates within post-Cartesian philosophy about the subject/object dichotomy. But. The subjectivist or marginalist revolution is widely thought by economists to constitute a major advance in thinking within the field of value theory. and disconnected from reality. therefore. While the philosophers have had in mind fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge. the part of economics that tries to coherently explain price phenomena such as rent. and that philosophy and economics have had distinct questions in view when they use this language of subjects and objects. A closer look. the economists at least appear to have had in mind only an issue local to certain corners of their own discipline. in the sense of Descartes’ cogito. however. to point to the inaccessibility of the crucial data of the market.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
8
B. cost. It is certainly true that when the economists deployed this language they were not exactly trying to do philosophy. an advance through which economists clarified an issue that the previous “objectivist” assumptions in value theory had obscured. the ‘subjective perceptions’ of (atomized) individuals. ours is a world of interconnections and interactions. Any science that is to study them must.
1. in philosophy to be a “subjectivist” is to somehow be turned inward. As traditionally elaborated. study human experience-in-the-world. and so forth. or Hegel. it seems to be only about a mental world. involving technicalities in value theory within microeconomics. Subjectivism and Objectivism in Philosophy
When economists talk about something in the economy being “subjective” they are only intending to make reference to the historical debates inside economics over value theory. The economists aren’t debating with Descartes. interest. To be called a “subjectivist” is a term of praise among many economists. and the Loss of the World
The idea of subjectivism has been interpreted. To fail to be subjectivist is to revert to a largely discredited viewpoint in value theory.

that both claiming the strict objectivity of science and claiming the subjectivity of non-science (the humanities. MerleauPonty. Likewise one of the main developments of continental philosophy. too inaccessibly buried in the realm of the mental. subjective and objective. the difference between scientific and everyday knowledge is exaggerated. from continental. The objectivity of science that the whole verstehen tradition including the Austrians. philosophers agree that the metaphysical and psychologistic presuppositions behind this way of talking are best left behind. were dragging along more philosophical baggage than fits. phenomenology. The notion the Austrians were trying to carve out of “an objective science of subjective phenomena” is misleading on both ends. in the economists’ discussions of the theory of value. some say all the way to Plato. If one attends closely to the language economists use to discuss value theory one can hear the echoes of the philosophical arguments of writers such as John Dewey that challenge Cartesian thinking. is today thought of by many philosophers as a false ideal. practical experience) are highly misleading sorts of claims.5 Virtually all the major figures in philosophy in the twentieth century have come to be wary of the
5
Though Edmund Husserl in a sense saw himself as trying to save the Cartesian project. and others. under the seat in front of them.
. The philosophical literature’s entanglement with the subject/object dichotomy goes back at least to the work of Descartes.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry discourses in value theory than at first appears. Across various otherwise diverse philosophical traditions. point beyond value theory to larger questions of the nature of economics and of knowledge. is burdensome. and Hegel. makes a very similar challenge to this artificial separation of the subject from the object. Both classical political economists and neoclassical economists. Gadamer. Perhaps economists should take heed of the kinds of critiques of the dichotomy which the pragmatist philosophers (along with several versions of post-modern philosophy) have developed. to American pragmatist traditions. too disconnected from reality. he was already in 1900
beginning to challenge the notion of scientific objectivity as it is routinely used in everyday language. so to speak. We will not rehearse the different versions of this challenge here. And because of these difficulties. subjective value phenomena are made to appear too arbitrary. The connotations of words like subjective and objective.
9
embedded in the connotations of words that carry meanings that may go way beyond the self-conscious intentions of the authors. The philosophical baggage of both terms. Suffice it to say that among contemporary philosophers there is now wide agreement that the dichotomy causes more trouble than it is worth. The Austrian school’s efforts to shake off some of the negative connotations of an objective economics were nevertheless failing to escape from the philosophical hazards of this misleading dichotomy. Since then in the work of his followers the challenge to the dichotomy has been deepened in the work of Heidegger. tended to endorse as some kind of value-freedom. Philosophical problems are often deeply lodged in the culture. The same danger philosophers have seen in the dichotomy shows up here. to contemporary analytic. Kant. as they went on imaginative flights aimed at explaining value phenomena. The contemporary analytic tradition has made this point in terms of undermining the presuppositions of the whole mind/body distinction.

and from a psychological or “mental” matter to a broader. and Dewey’s work in particular. that is. and of the mutual orientation of plans. This linkage brings both some strengths and some weaknesses to the Austrians’ work. But how did it characterize this world? The difficulties in the Austrian school’s methodological principle of subjectivism trace to difficulties in the early verstehen tradition’s own work on the nature of human understanding. but he was not just subjectivist. Whereas Mises linked subjectivism with the verstehen school. The main strength in the verstehen approach was that it turned the emphasis directly to the study of the meaningful world. he was a selfproclaimed “radical. was the notion of reconnecting subject and object by turning to the kind of practical knowing involved in the everyday world. and with whom they fought. occurring. technical point to a larger message involving a fundamental transformation of economic theory. while insisting on a fundamental
. This widening amounted to a linking up of the Austrian work in value theory with the verstehen tradition of German social thought. The assumption consisted in holding that the subject matters designated by these antithetical terms are separate and independent.” He was to say that subjectivism advanced as it went from a modest subjectivism of value (Menger) to a broader subjectivism of action (Mises) to a more radical one of knowledge and expectations (Shackle). a group of philosophers and social theorists from whom the Austrians borrowed. Subjectivism Radicalized: Lachmann and the Danger of Solipsism
Within Austrian economics there has been only a gradual clarification of the principle of subjectivism. of which he counted himself a proud member. When he arrived at Israel Kirzner’s Austrian economics program at New York University he challenged the American Austrians by suggesting that they were not thorough-going subjectivists. between subject and object. and even social theory in general. and had always taken the word “subjectivism” to be a term of unambiguous praise. that is. the main mark of distinction of the Austrian school. It lays traps from which the Austrian school never fully disentangled itself. It has gone from a narrow. The Austrian school began with the subjectivist revolution. or in words made familiar by use.
10
One of the fundamental points of American pragmatism in general. the dichotomy tends to artificially separate the notion of (subjective) meaning from the (objective) world. But it was Lachmann who prodded the school into having second thoughts about the possibility of “going too far” with subjectivism. Until. Of course he used the word as the term of praise extraordinaire. That is. Lachmann broadly understood himself as subjectivist in the same sense Mises did. the nature of meaningful action. philosophical issue about understanding. a charge they couldn’t take lightly. between mind and the world.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry misleading connotations of the dichotomy. The pragmatist John Dewey ([1949] 1989: 287-8) summed up the problem with the dichotomy this way: …[I]t was assumed that …knowledge … is dependent upon the independent existence of a knower and of something to be known.
2. These difficulties are nowhere more evident than in the Austrian school’s understanding (and misunderstanding) of Ludwig Lachmann’s contribution to the tradition. between self and not-self. hence the problem of problems was to determine some method of harmonizing the status of one with the status of the other with respect to the possibility and nature of knowledge. Ludwig Lachmann arrived.

then.” Perhaps owing to the sometimes powerfully evocative language in which Shackle (1972) writes. Wants were regarded as personal attributes in much the same sense as other attributes. and that the radicalizing direction toward which Lachmann pointed us. that is. Within the Austrian school Lachmann has been criticized for having allegedly gone too far in his radicalized version of subjectivism. The only standard which it applies is whether or not the means chosen are fit for the attainment of the ends aimed at’ (Mises 1949: 21).7 We argue that this charge is misplaced. the master subjectivist. Subjectivism when radicalized doesn’t have to mean turning to introspective self-examination. it is entirely neutral with regard to them.” In effect he provoked a debate within the American Austrian school that seemed to pit his “radical” version of subjectivism with the more modest version of Kirzner. ‘In this sense we speak of the subjectivism of the general science of human action. “We have now reached the third. but not the ends themselves which are ‘given’ to it. etc. such as weight. It can mean turning to the “context of inquiry” of market participants within the economy. In a world of change the mind of the actor must continuously ponder the adequacy of the means at his disposal. body temperature.’ or ‘interpretative’ economics. he says. It takes the ultimate ends chosen by acting man as data.” But what differs between Mises and Lachmann is more their sense of the nature of verstehen as their understanding of economics. or nihilism. has been our mentor. Subjectivism is now a matter of means and ends. or in any way turning away from the real world. But this does not go far enough. that the danger of solipsism goes way back to the psychologistic formulations of Lachmann’s predecessors in the Austrian school. and also the inquiry of economists who are systematically studying such actors. This is how Lachmann (1994: 246) sums up the progress of an increasingly radical subjectivism: Subjectivism of the first stage in the 1870s was a subjectivism of wants. and thus far highest. Lachmann’s “radical subjectivism” was challenged in turn by other Austrians for leading to relativism. There was no question of judgements of utility being utterances of the mind.
7
. the very dangers philosophers think of when they hear the word “subjectivism. hence problematical. for the more traditional Austrians. or solipsism. Since ends lie in the future and are thus always problematical. It is widely taken to be the place where
6
See Mises’ Theory and History (19??).The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry distinction between theoretical conception and historical understanding. we have to go beyond the subjectivism of means and ends to the subjectivism of expectations. In Mises’s work we reach the second stage. and George Shackle. Different men had different wants and thus were inclined to attribute different values to the same object. and thereby losing touch altogether with objective reality. if followed to its radical conclusions. seems to mean turning radically inward. without having to label either one subjective or objective. is actually a way to avoid the danger. Lachmann’s radical move to emphasize expectations has been controversial. and explicitly called for a “‘verstehende.6 Lachmann ([1966] 1977: 59-62) rejected
11
the need for this arbitrary distinction. Radicalizing subjectivism. stage. the subjectivism of the active mind. Lachmann was impressively knowledgeable about and interested in institutional details of the economy.

including some of Lachmann’s
12
own. the subjectivist approach treats the interacting individuals in the market process as if they were isolated atomistic individuals whose only contact with one another is through market signals. Mises 1933: 41. If what really matters. and a subjective theoretical science that depicts economic phenomena as resulting from the inaccessible contents of minds. Csontos (1998: 83) says. there are some serious difficulties here. Moreover. 122). observable price phenomena.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry the. Many statements of the principle. until then. Introspection is a kind of inner perception. although the emergence of organized societies can be an unintended by-product of their actions. Mises and Hayek explicitly pointed to introspection as the method for getting at subjective phenomena. To the extent that subjectivism goes in this direction. 50. 75-6.” stepped over the line. only now. specific knowledge based on familiarity with particular circumstances (Hayek 1952: 29-30). then how is it possible to undertake relevant empirical work? Some supporters of subjectivism. but more prevalent in the work of earlier Austrians. imperfect. and now.” Similarly. According to the proponents of methodological solipsism. Similarly. On the contrary. the exchange relationship is the social relation par excellence…
. gives us direct access to those thoughts. such as James Buchanan. invites the danger of solipsism. we can learn about our own mental states only by way of introspection (Hayek 1955: 44-5. This introspectively gained self-knowledge. and objectives with the help of which we can understand individual and collective attitudes and actions observable in the world around us. progressive extension of subjectivism “went too far. He tells us we need two branches of economics. we want to argue that there has always been something unsatisfying about the traditional formulations of the principle of subjectivism. confess that they cannot. as a result of the basic similarity of the human mind and the commonalities of our mental structures. Laslo Csontos (1998: 86) in an article on Lachmann but actually directed at the whole school. Isolated individuals organize into societies as a result of utilitarian considerations. concepts. Friedrich Wieser (one of the early contributors to the school) referred to the Austrians as the psychological school and contrasted economics from the natural sciences with the notions of knowledge “from without” and “from within. Csontos sums up the classical Austrian position on subjectivism (and offers some of the key citations) when he writes: How do we learn about our own mental states and thus how do we get to know the mental states of other people? According to one of the fundamental epistemological postulates of methodological solipsism. independent of any bodily organ of sense. has a point when he charges that this focus on “a kind of a priori and internal knowledge” sounds like it amounts to a form of solipsism. exhibit an unfortunate tendency to interpret subjectivity in psychological and/or mentalistic terms. through which we can acquire (so the theory goes) a singularly reliable form of self-knowledge. In their view society is made up of independent and isolated individuals (Hayek 1952: 50-1) who not only lack a common social knowledge or common experiences but who are made even more isolated by their existing knowledge because the latter is scattered. is the internal contents of individual minds. an objective empirical science that deals with measurable. according to subjectivist theory. terms that seem to place meaning out of reach of any empirical research.

The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
13
Some of the earlier Austrians described subjectivism in a manner that certainly invites this reading of subjectivism. inward. their concern seems to be expressed in terms of the very dilemmas to which the philosophical literature on the subject/object dichotomy draws attention. or when some more traditional Austrians defend themselves from this charge but criticize Lachmann in turn. The main thing the Austrians were trying to do is provide a general (objective) theoretical framework for the meaningful (subjective) study of economic phenomena. including the pragmatist tradition. we are already inside the world of meaning but never really clarified their language on the subject. logical.
. while in the human sciences we study phenomena that are already given meaning by human actors. Though sympathetic with the verstehen tradition’s defense of the study of the world of meaningful action. they could be read as simply trying to say that while in the natural sciences we study external
things in the physical world. The traditional philosophy of understanding seemed to leave no room for this project. however. was that we are talking about things that are going on within the minds of men and women. With the concept of “knowledge from within” they were trying to suggest that in this sense we have an advantage in the human sciences. they misread the fundamental nature of subjectivity as some kind of solipsistic. Economic theory could be a body of objective. with the subjective. that do not already have meaning for us. for doing so. was still struggling with the subject/object dichotomy. forced the Austrians into some awkward methodological positions in order to defend the idea of a science of meaningful human action. Indeed.
C. scientific reasoning. the Austrians could not (and should not) accept its denial of universality. inaccessibility. Questions Arising in the World: Dewey as a Remedy for What’s Ailing Economic Inquiry
The subjectivists need not remain trapped in the philosophical quagmire of the subject/object dichotomy. The way they typically put the point. They fear a loss of what they think is a necessary kind of objectivity.8 The fact that at the time the Austrian school encountered the verstehen tradition it. When mainstream economists criticize the Austrians for “going too far” with the idea of subjectivism. Many economists may think they are “subjectivists” in a philosophically harmless sense. in order to hold on to the objectivity that was thought required for science. evolved away from the Cartesian way of
8
Although to be fair. along with most philosophy of the time. The way out Mises took was to artificially divorce theory (the general) from history (the particulars) assigning the verstehen method only to the particularistic half of the human sciences. several different branches of philosophy. and only history needs to be “tainted” with the personal. but when they voice their concerns about the radicalization of subjectivism they bring out exactly the kinds of difficulties the philosophical literature points to.

disconnected representation of the world in itself. and on this basis sometimes seems to
privilege the method of introspection. etc. As we have argued. The study of human action is not objective. impartial. Perhaps a better way to put it is that economics is a systemic intersubjective study of intersubjective phenomena. The “subjective preferences of individuals” sounds like something inaccessible. the thing human knowing is “inside of” is no longer taken to be an individual person’s mind. from this point of view. we agree with writers like Peirce and Dewey that we should give up on the misleading dichotomous language. In effect. It can be systemic. The difference. fudged on this by arbitrarily separating theory from history. understanding is to be seen as a phenomenon of mediation between a reader and a “text. when viewed from the standpoint of contemporary pragmatist philosophy. even while admitting that the two halves were inseparable. in the sense of detached. one needs to make the additional
. Then. We are supposed to build up the fundamentals of a theory of human action by starting with the introspective examination of our own minds. a culture whose texts are publicly available to be interpreted. 10
9
In the later developments of the understanding tradition the subject/object dichotomy is being gradually overcome. he admits that all knowledge is connected to the phenomena it is about.9 Philosophy has gradually managed to free itself
14
from the dichotomy and most of its metaphysical baggage.
10
Mises inherited this way of talking about the idea of knowledge from within. though we can agree with what seems to be the basic point of this formulation. but an orientation from a particular context that arises from the articulations of the community of researchers. or impersonal. claiming objectivity for the theory half. Rather the point is that in the study of human action we are located within language. Or as Hans-Georg Gadamer argues in his critique of Dilthey.
As Alfred Schütz put it. buried within the skulls of separate atomistic agents. that something like a science of humanly meaningful phenomena is possible. as if it points us to the method of introspection. open to criticism. The subjective side of this dichotomy is just as misleading. This point of view is not an objective. what we are inside of is an intersubjective communicative process.” a spoken or written expression that is publicly available for interpretation. but it really can’t be objective. so that the situatedness of the historian inevitably taints the overall work of the human scientist. If the phrase “knowledge from within” is still used. It is not a matter of the divination of the original intention of the author. between the sort of knowledge achieved in science and everyday life is not a difference in kind. then. Mises. It sounds like it requires a focus on the individual mind.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry thinking we have found in the Austrian and verstehen traditions. that applied work in the human sciences is necessarily from the point of view of the researcher. as we have suggested. We come to appreciate basic concepts of the theory of action through this inward observation. Human action is not subjective in the sense of arbitrary. within the world of meaning. scholarly. or private. in the Misesian assertion that the human sciences are “the objective study of subjective phenomena” both of the subject/object terms are problematic. That is..

This whole way of talking seems backwards. but rather in the public. Rather than pushing us to be more precise. be made more coherent. It forces us to break apart considerations of human meaning. The point of subjectivism is really the one that sociologists call the social constructivist viewpoint. called “subjective. According to Dewey (1929: 8-9). Dewey and Human Experience
Dewey is perhaps the most influential American social theorist. which involves us not in the private. art and religion to metaphysics and politics. With the ‘empirical method. the problem with philosophy and. they flow from experience. therefore. Over his more than seventy-year academic career. the shared meanings within which our meaningful actions take place in the world. It forces us to construct philosophies about the world we live in. questions arise in the world. Can’t the underlying message of the “subjectivist” approach to economics be clarified. inaccessible world of an individual mind.’ as Dewey correctly asserts. he proposes what he terms the ‘empirical method.
. by shaking off this philosophical baggage? How best to make this move away from the (at least apparent) psychologism of Max Weber and the Austrians toward an appreciation of the “real” human experience-in-the-world? How best to make economics be about the meaningful world? How best can it deliver something of value to the general public? These remain open questions. With Experience and Nature ([1925] 1929)¸ he humbly set out to repair philosophy. critical to understanding the ‘empirical
assumption that Other Minds must exist. It forces us to consider actual problems instead of imaginary puzzles. Meaning is not buried in individual minds but is publically available in cultural artifacts. to me. with all the philosophical sciences (like economics) is that they are non-empirical or not empirical enough. and that they must work like our own.
1. We come to understand ourselves only through our entering into the intersubjective world of language. Understanding what Dewey meant by experience-in-the-world is. Traditional epistemology has trapped our thinking within the confines of this dichotomy.’ The attractiveness of the ‘empirical method’ for Dewey (1929: 7) is that it is pragmatic. and more productive of useful insight. One way to proceed. As a solution. The traditional Austrians were trying to get a perspective on knowledge that doesn’t have to accept what philosophers call the subject/object dichotomy. is by utilizing the philosophy of John Dewey. the recognition that our knowledge is conditioned by the questions we ask. the ‘empirical method’ insists that we become more relevant. social world of language. indeed. the language we use. that is.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
15
But what they are getting at when we refer to the subjective point of view of the agent is really the meaning things in the world have to him. we conjecture.” from considerations of “objective” reality. he has made significant contributions to everything from the philosophy of education.

It is “not experience which is experienced” but advertisements. This notion of articulating our experiences “in a language faithful to our way of having them” is not a bad way to
16
sum up what the Austrians have been trying to do in their subjectivist method. “Things interacting in certain ways. “it penetrates into [nature]. tables.
. . diseases.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry method’ he is promoting. but nature – stones. Dewey wrote that he decided to change the title to Nature and Culture: “I was dumb not to have seen the need for such a shift when the old text was written. It also has breadth and to an indefinitely elastic extent”. health.” It is “not experience which is experienced” but chairs. Ultimately it need not cling to either the standard of detached objectivity the earlier verstehen tradition thought was required for science. money. business relationships. Commenting on his preparation of a new edition of Experience and Nature in 1951. It need not insist that the social scientist’s knowing is different in kind from practical knowing of everyday persons. In a letter to Arthur Bentley he made some interesting remarks about the misleading connotations of the word experience. Rather. reaching down into its depths. Deweyan approach need not insist on the focus on particular circumstances. . “it is not experience which is experienced. for Dewey (1929: 2).” It is not.” Experience. computers. if you will. “are experience. goods.” Indeed. but can include a discussion of general patterns. plants. temperature. leads to a profound change in the way we describe the differences between the natural and social sciences. “It tunnels. As Dewey (1929: 4) notes. experience is experience-in-the-world. the hope . I was still hopeful that the [philosophic] word ‘Experience’ would be redeemed by [being] returned to its idiomatic usages—which was a piece of historic folly. for Dewey. nor the solipsism and arbitrariness of the notion of subjective meaning that it thought surrounded practical human understanding. electricity. thus. I mean…” The many critics of Dewey’s prose style should be more aware that the gnarled character of some of his writing traces to a determined effort to articulate the character of our experiences in a language faithful to our way of having them and in as rich a descriptive version as possible. “is no infinitesimally thin layer or foreground of nature. friendships. The contrast between the verstehen tradition’s subjectivist mind-reading approach to a Deweyan logic of inquiry approach. and in such a way that its grasp is capable of expansion”. “experience reaches down into nature. or structures.” as Dewey remarks. mere experience. transaction costs. prices. factories and offices. As John McDermott (1973: xxvi) pointed out in his introduction to a two volume collection of Dewey’s writings. it has depth. “in all directions and in so doing brings to the surface things at first hidden – as miners pile high on the surface of the earth treasures brought from below. experience stands in Dewey’s work for what we might today call culture. Experience. and so on.” as Dewey asserts. animals. be added to Dewey’s list of “electricity” and “stones” without obscuring what he means by experience. services and markets. they are how things are experienced as well. as Dewey contends. is thus not only the experience of nature but is also experience in nature. they are what is experienced . Anything in the world can. and also the differences between the kind of knowing achieved by any scientists and the practical knowing of persons in the society.

Like Dewey and unlike mainstream economics. commute to work in automobiles. and also how men act and are acted upon. and energy is received from the sun. Similarly. 10) remarks. are members of no communities and are believers in nothing at all except the pursuit of ‘hedonistic’ utility. employees and
17
employers. They are neither disembodied nor atomistic. watch television. which is aerated by earthworms. brothers and sisters. As Boisvert (1998: pp??) reminds us. however. individuals get treated like social automatons. husbands and wives. “‘experience’ is what James called a double-barreled word. as we have said. listen to the radio. to be sure. multifarious forms of interrelationships. Individuals. see. individuals in the world live in homes. participants in multifarious sorts of interactions with the world that encompasses them. are typically undersocialized. is possible and
11
As Dewey ([1925] 1929. individuals in Dewey’s thought are embedded in a “network of interconnections” (1929: 21). “is multidimensional. They are embodied individuals. we might say real change. routinely ignores the social and institutional context in which all economic activity takes place. civil servants and entrepreneurs. unaffected by [the] society or [the] polity” (Boettke & Storr 2002). Actors. shop for books on the Internet and talk to their friends on the telephone. life and history. community members and outsiders. isolated creatures. love. believe. complicated. It routinely pretends that individuals have “no families. a “genuinely inclusive empirical method” recognizes that these “varied” and “multifarious” interrelationships all have a temporal dimension (Boisvert 1998: 22). Mainstream economics.11 Dewey recognizes that individuals are church members. are citizens of no countries. in the hands of economists.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry Lived experience. Ordinary experience reveals entities in varied.” Similarly.
2.” Change. they are oversocialized creatures (Granovetter 1985). Weber and the Austrians are able to conceive of actual humans. they insist. Like its
congeners.”
. Rain falls on them. the ways in which they do and suffer. “a genuinely inclusive empirical method does not uncover isolated. humans in Dewey’s thought “are not primarily disembodied sorts of cogitators. When it does take social forces seriously. Real Time
Lived experience takes place in a temporal context. artisans. “affected by. it includes what men do and suffer. desire and enjoy. emotion. believe and endure. friends and acquaintances. Mainstream economics does not even pretend to portray (real) individuals (interacting) in the world. What they strive for. imagine. The crops [in a garden] are rooted in the soil. Like crops in a garden. influenced by. laden with memory. Insects provide the means of pollination for the plants. and qualitative judgment” (Boisvert 1998: 17). It routinely treats individuals as disembodied (re)actors motivated only by pecuniary motives. even directed by social structures and relations but not determined by them” (Granovetter 1985). As Boisvert (1998: 20) contends. are social characters. buses and trams. discrete entities.

into their theories. “a Newtonian system is merely a stringing together of static states and cannot endogenously generate change. like Dewey. today’s experiences necessarily make “tomorrow’s perceptions of events different than [they] otherwise would be” (1985: 3). While the mainstream tries to assume away the problems associated with real time. Indeed. and an appreciation of the temporality of all action as is displayed by the Austrians. As Dewey (1929. They have preferred a Newtonian conception of time where time is causally inert.” Acknowledging that “nature [is] a scene of incessant beginnings and endings. “the subject-matter of primary experience sets the problems and furnishes the first data of the reflection which constructs the secondary objects. emphasis added) asserts. varied and multifarious interactions. as O’Driscoll and Rizzo (1985: 60) suggests. In the world. the indeterminateness of human action-in-the-world. “a dynamically continuous flow of novel experiences. emphasizing the radical ignorance that necessarily conditions human action and. therefore. Why is this? Why are the Austrians aware of the problems of real time and radical ignorance while many in the mainstream aren’t? The answer. mainstream economists have a radically different conception of time than Dewey and the subjectivists. time is irreversible. time as experienced-inthe-world. Dewey and the subjectivists¸ as we have seen. They take as their starting point the world where learning takes place and radical ignorance conditions all human action.” Experience-in-the-world sets the problems that our theories try to solve. mainstream economists have preferred to analogize time to space (something to be allocated) rather than incorporating time.” O’Driscoll and Rizzo (1985) offer both a critique of the superficial manner in which mainstream economics incorporates time into its theories. occur in time.” Each period (or point) in time is isolated and so time becomes static. In the world. do not. both Dewey’s ‘empirical method’ and the subjectivists take as their starting point the life-world where time passes and change is not only possible but inevitable. . Dewey (1934: 214) argues that “Time as empty does not exist. we conjecture. Like Dewey. As Dewey ([1925] 1929.” he continues. the ‘empirical method’ does not tolerate logic games or mere
. Indeed.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry interactions. It is not ratiocination that supplies the questions. a constant quality of their behavior is temporal”. thus. on the other hand. “enables thought to apprehend causal mechanisms and temporal finalities as phases of the same natural process. as it is actually experienced. As O’Driscoll and Rizzo (55) assert. In mainstream economic theories time can elapse “without anything happening” (54). is that both Dewey and the subjectivists begin their analysis in the world while the mainstream doesn’t. have no wish to escape “the temporal dimension within which interrelations takes place” (Boisvert 1998: 22). temporality is a “quality of experience” (Boisvert 1998: 23). Time as lived. homogeneous and only mathematically (not dynamically) continuous. the subjectivists stress the importance of real time. The mainstream. The subjectivists.” Genuine surprise and serendipity is possible in the world. is not static or inert but is instead. As Dewey argues. very rarely takes real time seriously (1985: 53-59). What exists are things acting and changing . time as an entity
18
does not exist. Questions arise in the world and are answered (through reflection) in the “laboratory” (or in the philosopher’s mind). assume away these characteristics of real time but instead take them seriously. . In other words. 83) asserts. 7. “nature is an affair of affairs.

Philosophy (and the philosophical sciences) should illuminate aspects of our experience-in-the-world that were hitherto unseen.
12
As Klein (1999) points out. For the latter. . as a result. there is “a major difference between political economy and such disciplines as
physics. making a similar claim about the point of scientific inquiry. engineering. Likewise a model answers a story. however. of what is experienced gains an enriched and expanded force because of the path or method by which it was reached” (ibid. . . experience-in-the world “sets the problems” and “furnishes the first data” for philosophical inquiry. Klein (ibid) argues. 73). as Dewey asserts. It should try to serve the everyman.12 McCloskey (1990a) makes a similar point when she speaks of the relationship between metaphors (economic theory) and stories. thus. As Dewey writes. .the Everyman. Getting Back to the World
Our inquiry should not only begin in the world but should contain a path back to it.” If we allow our primary experience-in-the-world (our non-analytical narratives) to inspire our inquiries. everyday life. . experts are appointed to make important decisions . ‘How many angels can fit on a pinhead’ is thus not a valid line of inquiry. but every public official and ordinary voter -.”
3. develop better theories and tell better narratives. the significant content. and medicine. praxeology restricts its inquiries to the study of acting under those conditions and presuppositions which are given in reality. Rather. “that the metaphorical and the narrative explanations answer to each other. It should organize isolated details of some everyday experience and impart new meanings. “It has doubtless been noticed before.” Mises (1966: 65) asserts. Mises ([1949] 1966) concurs. . should “define or lay out a path by which return to experienced things is of such a sort that the meaning. In political economy. unless “primary experience” sets us that question and unless the answer offered allows us to grasp (to better understand) the experience-in-the-world that launched that line of study. should. we will. Mises continues. “is to know reality. .
.” Economics. “a story answers a model.” As a result. It is not mental gymnastics or a logical pastime. It should search for the keys where they are likely to be not just under the lamppost (McCloskey 1990b.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
19
puzzle solving. “the test and verification of [our philosophies] is secured only by return to the things of crude or macroscopic experience – the sun.” As McCloskey puts it. plants and animals of common. 8). It [only] studies acting under unrealized and unrealizable conditions . serve the everyman. earth. “The end of science. if such an inquiry is needed for a satisfactory grasp of what is going on under the conditions present in reality.” McCloskey (1990a: 61) says. chemistry. The “secondary objects” produced by reflecting on our experiences. begin to write better poems. the practitioner is not the expert economist.

“is not that it depends upon theorizing. meaning in this view. those in the verstehen tradition shun empiricism. “there is no verification. As Lavoie (199?. thus. but that it fails to use refined. but [in] a communicative process. “The charge that is brought against the non-empirical method of philosophizing. Regrettably.” Dewey ([1925] 1929. Rather than reading people’s minds. . How else can you get at the meaning that individuals attach to their situations and their actions except through empirical study? For many in the Austrian camp. a discourse. As hinted at earlier. as Dewey asserts. So. As Lavoie (199?: 481) complains. even though “an economics of meaning” would seem to force empirical study. however. While the problem with the mainstream is that it is only superficially empirical. they then all but retreat into their skulls once they begin their inquiries. . however. 8) declares. . thus. and the objects of their actions. no effort even to test and check” in the non-empirical sciences. Many in the Austrian tradition “strangely” view meaning as something “internal to an individual mind. “directs our curiosity toward certain problems and diverts it from other problems. This is true. both the neoclassical and the verstehen traditions (in spite of McCloskey’s and Mises’ chiding) have remained non-empirical or not sufficiently empirical philosophical sciences. the verstehen tradition is enamored with ratiocination and introspection. The common opinion of subjectivism is that its importance is strictly theoretical. that we group their actions. for Mises. meaning is not in our skulls but in the world. “lies beyond economic science to explain and needs to be taken as given. the verstehen tradition refuses to return to it. ends up
. Lavoie contends. may be a permissive attitude towards abstract theorizing that stays aloof from empirical work.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry Experience.” While mainstream economics is essentially about angels on pinheads. the problem with the verstehen tradition (at least as often articulated by the Austrians) is that it shuns any sort of empirical verification.”
20
Unfortunately. While the blackboard economics of the mainstream does not even pretend to begin in nature. that if one were to take it seriously in empirical work one would become mired in the problem of how to read people’s minds. The non-empirical methods of the neoclassical and the verstehen traditions fail on several fronts. opting for precision over relevance. individual mind. getting at meaning seems an intractable problem. an absurdly difficult task. thus. “it is not [to be found in] an isolated.” speaking frequently about the importance of knowledge-from-within. 482) points out. although they insist that experience “set the problems” of inquiry and that it serve as the “primary data” for study.” One consequence of describing subjectivism (their economics of meaning) in this way. secondary products as a path pointing and leading back to something in primary experience. into classes or categories which we know solely from the knowledge of our own mind” (Hayek 1948: 63). Austrians typically recommend that we interpret the actions of others “on analogy of our own mind: that is.” Retreating into our heads. It tells us what we should explore.

Mises ([1949] 1966: 65) also insisted that. This is ironic since it was Mises who insisted that we let experience direct our curiosity and drive our inquiry. “statistical significance is bankrupt. being reached by methods
13
The Austrian’s often-expressed and often-chastised insistence that economics is universally certain and non-
falsifiable. Aggregation.” The “statements and propositions” of economics. it is nothing” (Bergson cited in Rizzo 1994: 115). “the things of ordinary experience do not get enlargement and enrichment of meaning as experience” from most econometric tests (Dewey ([1925] 1929: 8).14 Remember that ordinary experience is interconnected and embedded in a temporal world.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry giving up on accessing the world. economics. however. since Mises. Ordinary experience. The objects of reflection in philosophy [and the philosophical sciences]. even time series analysis treats time statically. a priori. . “this reference to experience does not impair the aprioristic character of . they frequently do not return to it. like those of logic and mathematics.13 Does the mainstream avoid this problem? Does the mainstream tests its theories in the world? On the surface. on the other hand. Although econometrics (aiming at statistical significance) can be used to “test” economic theories. Relationships are (necessarily) not allowed to change and units of time are (typically) treated as discrete. however. Mises (32) contends.
14
McCloskey (2000a. checking and verification are the lynchpins of mainstream positivism (the method advocated by Friedman (1953)). Unfortunately. As stated before. necessarily aggregate and always abstract from the temporal dimension of human interaction. They are. most would argue that falsification. While many would
21
concede that the mainstream does not begin in the world. it seems almost laughable to charge the mainstream with being non-empirical. for instance argues that although the “main empirical rhetoric in economics” is
statistical significance. takes place in certain places at specific times. abstracts from the heterogeneous and context-specific character of individual interactions. Perhaps the most unfortunate failure of the non-empirical and the superficially empirical methods. however. Although the Austrians begin with our experience-in-the-world. has been convinced by these and similar passages in Human Action and so have shunned empirical work. it does not enrich our experience in the world. deprived of efficacy and if it does nothing. gives up on the world. as Dewey ([1925] 1929: 9) notes.” Much of the Austrian school. . They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience or facts. The mainstream by failing to begin in the world is simply unable to return to it. is that they come to view ordinary experience as either “arbitrary” or “aloof. . “time is . It does not serve the everyman. 220). “are not derived from experience. by failing to contemplate actual experience. . Econometric models. all the ‘findings’ of the Age of Statistical Significance are erroneous and need to be redone. the mainstream is only superficially empirical. as is often pointed out. similarly. testing.” As Dewey contends. And.”
.

16
Dewey’s theory of inquiry belongs. for instance. blind alleys. (ibid) By “controlled” or “directed”. By beginning with atomized. “blocks to inquiry. . to the dialectic of question and
answer. ‘phenomenal. is motivated. . Every act of understanding. in fact.” It is. primary experience. many Austrians are clearly in need of a path out of their heads and back into reality.” The mainstream thus needs a dose of pragmatism. What it aims at are answers to questions that arise in the (indeterminate) world. See also Boettke (1998a) and Boettke & Storr (2002) where “a more consistent application of the theories of Weber” is proposed as a fruitful path out of the abyss of economics. Where in the World is the Economy?
Dewey in Logic: Theory of Inquiry ([1938] 1991) outlines what he calls “the pattern of inquiry. that does not answer specific questions that prescribe a specific orientation.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry that seem to those who employ them rationally mandatory are taken to be “real” in and of themselves – and supremely real. that is applied both in common sense and science. as Dewey complains. his theory of inquiry. and the consequent diversity of its special techniques has a common structure . “to understand something means to have related it ourselves in such a way that we discover in it an answer to our own questions . makes the world. they are puzzles rather than problems. by failing to appreciate man’s condition in the world. . the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole. should be what they are or indeed why they should be at all. . Lavoie (1990. which is always in disequilibrium. .”
. no understanding. or by some other disparaging name. in particular. Similarly. isolated individuals. we turn to Dewey and.16
15
To be sure. for instance. A text is given voice only by reason of the questions that are put to it today. as Dewey (105) asserts. There is no interpretation. mere impressions. 1991) and Lavoie and Storr
(2001) and Storr (2001) where philosophical hermeneutics is offered as a possible path. which are. perplexed by it.’ mere appearance.
22
Economics. like Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. As Grondin (1994: 116-117) summarizes. . See. It cannot explain it but leaves us. Dewey is not the only path forward. . Then it becomes an insoluble problem why the things of gross. even selfunderstanding. problematic. stimulated by questions that determine in advance the sight lines of understanding. their inquiry needs to be grounded in reality.” Inquiry. Dewey simply means that inquiry aims at something. “in spite of the diverse subjects to which it applies. solved only by calling the original material of primary experience. the non-empirical method gives rise to problems.15
4. How can we insure that our questions arise in the world and that our answers return us to it? Again.

by [mere] manipulation of our personal states of mind. Even were existential conditions unqualifiedly determinate in and of themselves. ambiguous. 2) argue. cleared up and put in order. One question that now arises is how are individuals able to cope with these problems of time and ignorance? Stated another way. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. they are indeterminate in significance: that is. If it is mistaken or incorrectly specified it will send inquiry off into bogus or irrelevant directions. how can inquiry proceed in a world that is confused. Our experience-in-the-world is not always unambiguous. As Mises
([1949] 1966: 13) notes. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better. “we call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action.” Defining the problem is allimportant. the first steps of inquiry are realizing that a situation requires inquiry.” exists in the world (110).18 As Dewey writes. It is called conflicting when it tends to evoke discordant responses.” That experience-in-the-world is frequently disturbed is what impels inquiry.” In the same way. Indeed. There is nothing in the present state of the world that enables us to predict the future state because the latter is underdetermined by the former. Rather. Knowing. that it is problematic. If it does not arise out of experience-in-the-world it
17
Mises makes a similar point when he notes that action is always impelled by a feeling of uneasiness. confused [and] full of conflicting tendencies. then it is meant that its outcome cannot be [fully] anticipated. If we call [interactions in the temporal world] confused. In the language of Gadamer. “to find out what the problem and problems are which a problematic situation presents to be inquired into. the world presents us with a hermeneutical problem.”
. Experience-in-theworld.
18
As O’Driscoll and Rizzo (1985. as they say.17 As suggested earlier. Uncertainty that. It is called obscure when its course of movement permits of final consequences that cannot be clearly made out. experience-in-the-world is necessarily conditioned by the problems of real time and radical ignorance.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
23
To say that the world is an indeterminate situation is simply to concede that it is open to inquiry “in the sense that its constituents do not hang together” (109). inquiry is only necessary when a situation is disturbed. it often needs to be understood. As Dewey (112) asserts. Action-in-the-world. the situation that impels inquiry are not only “troubled” in some superficial sense. it often needs to be grasped. there is blind groping in the dark” (ibid). is to be well along in inquiry. “a world in which there is autonomous or creative decision-making is
one in which the future is not merely unknown. and then formulating (instituting) a problem. but unknowable. “without a problem. inherent uncertainty pervades. is half the battle and a problem well put is a problem half-solved. inescapable. troubled. it often needs to be organized and interpreted (Gadamer 1986: 65). in what the import and portend in their interaction with the organism. is frequently “disturbed. obscure and conflicting? As Dewey (11) contends. as Dewey laments. radical. “cannot be straightened out. and his action aims at bringing about this desired state.

“to search out the constituents of a given situation which. “Since they are settled or determinate in existence. is somewhere. It is bounded “by the scarcity of means at the disposal of actors. for instance. And. inquiry is not possible in a situation where all the given constituents are uncertain. what data should be investigated and what should be ignored. Dewey uses the example of a fire alarm being sounded in a crowded auditorium to illustrate this point. to figure out the parameters of the problem situation. the aisles. these circumscribe “the range of action of different groups of actors. .” as North asserts. employers and employees” (Lachmann 1994: 285). in North’s (1990: 3) schema. once they have made their choice they must adhere to it if consistent action with a chance of success is to be possible at all. drive an automobile. that is. because they are conditions that must be reckoned with or taken account of in any relevant solution that is proposed. North agrees with this characterization. Lachmann 1971: 37). by limiting the range of possible activities and by defining and delimiting the opportunity sets individual’s face. “the first step in institution of a problem is to settle them in observation. the behavior and movements of other people in the auditorium. is unknowable but it is not unimaginable. the exit doors are fixed. As Dewey notes. The fire. As he suggests. “though not temporally and spatially fixed. to say that a situation is inherently and inescapably doubtful is not to suggest that it is completely doubtful. is what makes both action and causal explanation possible. to gather data and to formulate and refine our hypothesis. while men are free to choose ends to pursue. “one may get out safely or one may be trampled and burned. Like Dewey.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry will start us on a wasteful course. dead because the work is ‘busy work’”. “so that when we wish to greet friends on the street. Similarly. Action in a completely indeterminate situation would be impossible (Mises ([1949] 1966: 105-119.” Indeed. institutions and obstacles and so must be oriented to them in its course. Recognizing this.” It is bounded “by the circumstance that. which paths should be pursued and which should be left unexplored.” as Dewey suggests. reduce uncertainty by structuring everyday life. The problem suggests which answers (which
24
hypotheses) should be entertained and which should be dismissed. action is bounded by obstacles. the first step in finding an answer to a problem is. According to Dewey (112). as Lachmann frequently asserts. The future. there is much that is indeterminate in this situation. That action is bounded by ends. the next step in the pattern of inquiry is to grope for an answer. therefore.” are still observable. but neither is it arbitrary. The chairs. . “All of these observed conditions taken together. Institutions.” It is bounded by institutions. we
. borrow money.” Lachmann makes a similar point when discussing the role of institutions in enabling human action. buy oranges. 112). “They are a guide to human interaction. or whatever. If the problem is profitably specified and arises from our experience in the world it might lead to the determination of a problem solution.” Similarly. form a business. means. are settled” (Dewey [1938] 1991. “to set up a problem that does not grow out of an actual situation is to start on a course of dead work . action is bounded. as Lachmann (1971: 37) asserts. bury our dead. as constituents. buyers and sellers.” as Dewey (113) contends “constitute the terms of the problem.” But there is much that is stable (at least regarding the immediate problem). creditors and debtors. Lachmann (1971: 37) argues that “human action is not determinate.

. unified and resolved” with respect to the problem at hand. the
situation is only “cleared up. central to Dewey’s thought is the proposition that inquiry should not only begin in the world but that it should also give us a path back to it. the points of orientation.” Dewey does not mean to imply that the question is answered once and for all. the answer. Dewey’s pattern of inquiry.19 Inquiry. Remember. As more and more of the settled constituents. and in depriving them of having in “reality” even the significance they had previously seemed to have? Does it yield the enrichment and increase of power of ordinary things which the results of physical science afford when applied in every-day affairs? Or does it become a mystery that these ordinary things should be what they are. if we conclude that it serves the everyman. the institutions that bound action are observed. He ([1925] 1929: 9) has proposed that we apply the following test to our inquiries.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
25
know (or can easily know) how to perform these tasks. then we should accept it. thus presents itself as a mode of study that increases the likelihood that we produce profitable philosophy by insisting that we both begin in and end in the world. We ensure that it is consistent with the other things that we “know” about the world. once they “come to light in consequence of the being subjected to observation. to be sure. Finally and critically. and are philosophic concepts left to dwell in separation in some technical realm of their own? If our theory passes the test. By subjecting our working hypothesis to this sort of critical examination. Since inquiry ends in the world. more and more “determinate” (clearly articulated) answers are conceived and a working hypothesis is proposed. render them more significant. we test its (internal and external) logic. therefore. should neither begin nor end in our skulls. And. the settling of one question may (indeed necessarily) leads to new concerns and questions. We examine its implications. a critical stage in pursuing an inquiry. is a tentative one. we refine and develop our propositions. more luminous to us. the clearer and more pertinent become the conceptions of the way the problem constituted by these facts is to be dealt with” (Dewey [1938] 1991: 113). Dewey (1991: 115-116) calls the next stage of inquiry reasoning because after proposing a working hypothesis. by engaging in this sort of discourse.” Accounting for the institutions that constrain and so shape and enable human (inter) action in a particular problem situation is. and make our dealings with them more fruitful? Or does it terminate in rendering the things of ordinary experience more opaque than they were before. in accepting it. We see how it holds together. we complete our transformation of the “indeterminate situation” we began with into a “determinate” one. that is. as Dewey argues repeatedly. Instead. we take the “theory” that emerges from this process and attempt to verify it (in the world). when they are referred back to ordinary life-experiences and their predicaments.
19
By “determinate. Does it end in conclusions which. As more and more is learnt (perceived) about a problem situation.

therefore. Conclusion
Unfortunately. The Austrians seemed to have been trying to place the emphasis on the issue of meaning. The practitioners of political economy are and have always been ordinary people. Their aspiration was to link the world of meaningful economic action with the world of economic science. Their concern was in fact to make all the value phenomena that are familiar in the world of business (prices. as mental gymnastics. profits. This is bizarre. interest. given Dewey’s critique of the non-empirical methods. etc. It can only be seen as producing “kelly green golfing shoes with chartreuse tassels” (McCloskey 2000a.The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
26
D. It is quite clear. Economics has lost the world which is particularly bad and. but the way consumers attach significance to final goods. It cannot be thought of as science. but their language trapped them in difficulties familiar to contemporary philosophers. since the practitioner of political economy is and has always been the everyman (Klein 1999). most economics stopped being about the goings on in the economy a very long time ago. They were called the “psychological school” but their primary concern was never the psyche as such. rent. it has also managed to lose the economy.) meaningful in terms of human purposes and plans. If economics does not aid in our understanding of human (economic) interaction. as a consequence. but they didn’t quite have a language to do this in without dragging along some baggage in the form of the subject/object dichotomy.
. 150). We have proposed Dewey (and particularly his theory of inquiry) as a path out of this abyss because he pressures us to begin with our experience-in-the-world and to test our theories by returning there. cost. and the way this significance or meaning is imputed up the structure of production to give us a meaning of producers’ goods. it can only be viewed as a logical pastime. that a way out is desirable.